RE: [Geopriv] "Postal" and "Jurisdicational" civic locations - reprise

[<g.caron at bell.ca>]

Dear Mary,
Dear Geopriv community,

In light of what have been discussed in this thread and after further investigation, here is my position on this topic. I apologize at the onset for the length of this response.

The position exposed herein is based on the following opinions/facts:

a) Emergency service is likely to be the first tangible enabler for the deployment of a location-capable IP infrastructure;
b) Coincidentally, commercial location-based services may follow shortly thereafter;
b) User-input location is specifically disallowed for ES in Canada per regulation. As such, a reference to common-use civic format is less critical for ES;
c) While a valid and desired goal, address conversion between "legacy" MSAG-based and "common" postal-based formats should not be taken for granted, at least for the short term. Address translation should not be made a mandatory step to deploy a location-capable IP infrastructure; that in order to prevent adding undue delays to implementation for ES;
d) As such, a LIS in Canada (and any other country that may see things the same way) should be able to store multiple civic formats for a certain period of time to accommodate ES and non-ES applications. I believe at least one potential LIS vendor stated this was possible;
e) After further investigation, I concur with others that in the majority of cases also in Canada, a jurisdictional civic address should work in a postal-based application albeit certain potential corner cases similar to what was mentioned by some U.S. participants;
f) Contrary to those however, it is my opinion that those cases should not be discarded but accommodated, at least with ES in mind;

Now, specific to points raised in this thread:

1) Ability to specify different civic formats (Postal, Jurisdictional, Common or whatever) of an LO
	
I am willing to accept the verdict of the group of *initially* having only one form of civic format to be available from a civic address-capable LIS *if* all agree that this LIS would ALWAYS hold at least one jurisdictionally validated civic address per location. This civic address would therefore be assumed to be "ES-ready" i.e., routable and dispatchable in the case of an emergency call. I believe this is the position of the majority of the vocal Geopriv community.

2) Ability to ask for a specific nature of civic format through HELD

If 1) is accepted, there is no *immediate* need to support this feature in HELD or other LCPs. If the LIS holds more than one civic format for a particular location, it must supply at least the "ES-ready" LO to the location requester when locationType="any" or "civic" (with or without the "exact" attribute). Of course it would be desirable for the LO to be properly tagged to reflect the application context (if it can not be guessed by reading the LO itself) so the location recipient can differentiate between the various civic forms supplied.

In summary, since a Location-capable IP architecture should not restrict non-ES applications (which potentially implies using common-use civic format) while ensuring ES applications will be fully supported at the onset, I'm of the view that:

- The LIS should at least supply one ES-ready civic address (fine for the immediate/short term);
- Considering a LIS that supplies more than one civic format with no mechanism to differentiate between them may impede both ES and non-ES applications, it is desirable for the client to be able to distinguish the various forms by either A) the LIS providing a characterization in the response or B) the ability for the client to request a specific civic format (no characterization in the response; the client creates its own storage bin per civic "types"). Both options are acceptable to me.

With this added flexibility comes the ability to support the "corner cases" that may not be otherwise accommodated which could mean disaster in the case of ES applications.

It can be addressed now, or later.

Best regards,	

Guy Caron
________________________________________
De : Mary Barnes [mailto:mary.barnes at nortel.com] 
Envoyé : 13 septembre 2007 12:02
À : geopriv at ietf.org
Objet : [Geopriv] "Postal" and "Jurisdicational" civic locations - reprise

Hi all, 
This thread never seemed to conclude with clear consensus as to whether folks see a need for both these specific location types rather than being able to use a common "civic" locationType.     I went back through the threads and the majority of the responses indicated that both of the values should be the same (with Canada being the exception?).   Since the thread did diverge somewhat (into how conversions etc. are done), I would like to do a quick query to see if folks are okay with removing those two values from the locationType in the HELD draft?   
And, just to be precise, we're proposing changing locationType from a set of {any, civic, geodetic, postalCivic, jurisdictionalCivic, locationURI} to a set of
{any, civic, geodetic, locationURI}.  
Regards, 
Mary 
Editor HELD 



_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv